Mulvaney Strikes Again

R euters

Just days after revealing the White House was involved in a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government, Chief of Staff Mulvaney pulls a Giuliani and speaks before he thinks, adding fuel to the emoluments fire in explaining why Trump pulled back on the plans to award himself a large contract.

“I think it was the right decision to change,” said Mulvaney, who said he had discussed the matter with Trump on Saturday evening. Mulvaney had made the initial announcement that the Trump property would host the annual meeting at a White House news conference on Thursday. Ethics experts and many lawmakers quickly attacked the decision.

“At the end of the day, he still considers himself to be in the hospitality business, and he saw an opportunity to take the biggest leaders from around the world and he wanted to put on the absolute best show, the best visit that he possibly could and he was very confident of doing that at Doral,” Mulvaney said.

At the end of the day, he's just a hotelier. Take it easy on him people. This president thing the people are focusing on is blown way out of proportion, he's in the hotel business. Get it right.

The U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause prohibits government officials from receiving salaries, fees or profits from foreign and domestic governments without congressional approval.

Pressed about his comment that Trump still considers himself to be in the hospitality business, Mulvaney said: “It’s his background.”

“He wanted to put on a show, he wanted to take care of folks,” he added. “He’s in the hotel business, at least he was.”

He's in the hotel business, at least he was. We can't really tell, the lines are so blurred. President... hotelier... what day is this?

a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

Link to support your hypothesis?

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

Link to support your hypothesis?

You first

But Trump Tweeted this was a no profit deal for the G7 and taxpayers !!! 😃

And it's old news anyway too 😃

1) Mulvaney did not say that Trump was involved in a quid pro quo in relation to Biden. He said, correctly, that foreign policy is all about quid pro quo's.

2) The summit is not at Doral, now.

Other than getting everything wrong - as you usually do OP - thanks.

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

Link to support your hypothesis?

www.cbsnews.com...#" target="_blank" class="postlink">link
But I completely understand your willful ignorance...you happen to prefer truth over facts, I get it lil buddy, it's ok, 2024 will be here soon

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

Link to support your hypothesis?

You first

Why do I feel like I'm debating kindergartners?

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

Link to support your hypothesis?

You first

Why do I feel like I'm debating kindergartners?

Well, first you need a valid position for debate, secondly, links and sources do well to substantiate your argument, you provided none.

In all honesty, there really is no point in debate with a delusional leftist with extreme hyper partisan views 😌

ATS does an excellent job of separated the trash you dump here daily.

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

Link to support your hypothesis?

You first

Why do I feel like I'm debating kindergartners?

I know, right?

I don't know how they expect you to keep up.

originally posted by: Oraculi
He's in the hotel business, at least he was. We can't really tell, the lines are so blurred. President... hotelier... what day is this?

I suppose you'd rather have a president that was a lifetime social activist or a lifetime politician. Neither of which ever earned a living but live off tax payers and spend other people's money. Give me a president that has had to work hard not to lose everything they own. Even one that has made millions (billions) and gone bankrupt a couple of times is better than someone that has no concept of earning a living.

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Oraculi
Pretty sure all the money he makes from foreign nationals from his businesses goes to the treasury, so there goes the emoluments argument...whoopsie.

Link to support your hypothesis?

You first

Why do I feel like I'm debating kindergartners?

You contributions are met in kind.

Trump is hated because he knows what a budget is.Not only does he know, but has maintained a budget

Name any politician that has been elected to office more than once that has maintained a budget.

(good luck)

If Trump is just trying to get rich all the time, I’d say the fact that his net worth is over a billion dollars less than before he was president, along with the fact that he is the only president ever to donate his entire salary to things such as veterans organizations makes all of these arguments nothing but 4am talking points for the pretty people on TV to spew to gullible leftists such as the OP.

a reply to: Oraculi

When he was elected president in 1789, George Washington was one of the nation’s largest landowners. Most of his holdings were on the wrong (western) side of the Appalachian Mountains, though, and thus of dubious financial value.

Delegates to that convention agreed that executive officers of the new national government they were creating could not accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without congressional consent, and could be thrown out of office by Congress for taking bribes from anyone. But they didn’t make any rules constricting officials’ investments and business interests.

If they had, much of the nation’s nascent commercial activity might have ground to a halt. The U.S. was short on both potential government officials and potential investors, so combining the two activities was common. The New York economy, for example, was dominated by what historian Brian Murphy calls “political entrepreneurs” — Aaron Burr, DeWitt and George Clinton, Robert Fulton, Alexander Hamilton, Robert Livingston. This is from Murphy’s “Building the Empire State: Political Economy in the Early Republic”: – Bloomberg

There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that this is wrong or Un-Constitutional. The reason being is that serving as CiC, or in the legislative branch was seen as a secondary vacation of sorts. Public Service was never meant to be a full time job like we see today. It was implied that they would be home more than in Washington, and therefore would need to sustain themselves and their families in some way.

From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress couldn’t afford to stay year-round in Washington because they were paid so poorly. Senators and representatives made just a few dollars a day. In 1815, they began receiving $1,500 a year salary. In 1855 that doubled. By 1935, they were making $10,000 a year. But most members of Congress still needed day jobs.

Even into the 1960s, members of Congress “were out of session about as much as they were in, and they had almost no personal and committee staffers assigned to them unless they were senior and powerful,” says Larry Sabato, an American history professor at the University of Virginia and director of the university’s Center for Politics. It wasn’t until the 1970s that members of Congress began seeing their positions as year-round commitments. – NPR

But if we're gonna do this, then everyone needs to be put under the microscope. How are our politicians increasing their net worths into the millions while working as a full-time public servant making $170k a year? Seems like another case of projection on the part of Dems.

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
If Trump is just trying to get rich all the time, I’d say the fact that his net worth is over a billion dollars less than before he was president, along with the fact that he is the only president ever to donate his entire salary to things such as veterans organizations makes all of these arguments nothing but 4am talking points for the pretty people on TV to spew to gullible leftists such as the OP.

That's the part where they say he isn't a very good businessman, while also maintaining that he's clever enough to be involved in a world wide corruption ring seemingly run by himself and his family, and managing to stay out of jail for it for the last 3 decades..or something to that effect.

a reply to: Oraculi

LOL, Poor Trump is going to be hanged by a bunch of idiots for something he thought about doing, and backed out of. And no, you can't make this stuff up.

The left is so far past bat sh!t crazy, it's sad.

Obama threatened to withhold USAID to Nigeria for his personal crusade against anti-gay laws in Africa .

Quid pro quo lock him up !!!

The emoluments clause is the flat earth for anti-trumpers.

They’ve been swearing it’s true since the Trump Hotel but they can’t prove it .

He ''says'' he has withdrawn from his business dealings.
He ''says'' the summit at Doral would be at cost.
He ''says'' over and over and over.

Yet is his corporation still making money? Are his kids still reaping profits that corporation?

Every heard of a lost leader?

That is when a store or a company puts an ad in the paper on on the tube. Big sale they say. Low low prices. Our cost is your cost. On and on. Lost leaders are always used to draw consumers into your establishment to get that good deal as advertised. Then all the other stuff you buy is at regular or higher prices.

It's a sucker gambit. Make you think you got such a good deal just to get you to come back. It's advertising and that is what this summit at his resort was for him and his corporation. Advertising.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

Every heard of a lost leader?

That is when a store or a company puts an ad in the paper on on the tube. Big sale they say. Low low prices. Our cost is your cost. On and on. Lost leaders are always used to draw consumers into your establishment to get that good deal as advertised. Then all the other stuff you buy is at regular or higher prices.

Um. You should get a refund from business school.

Lost leader = Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Obama.